Aerial from north

The site of et-Tell

is a prominent
ruin that is
usually identified
as biblical
Ai. Archaeologic
al excavations
though have
shown that Ai
was inhabited
from 3000-2400
B.C. and again
after 1200 B.C.,
but not during the
time of Joshua's
Conquest (1400
B.C.). Resorting
to a "late date"
theory of the
Conquest does
not solve the
problem
Et-Tell is right
center of the
picture. The
barren hill just
below the top left
is another
suggested site of
the city of Ai that
Joshua destroyed
(Khirbet el-
Maqatir). Bethel
is usually
equated with
Beitin (top right),
but may better be
located in modern
el-Bireh (top
left). Excavations
to date to not give
a conclusive
answer.
• One of the most problematic discoveries in archaeology over the past 65 years is that of the site
that many consider to be the Biblical city of Ai. Joshua 8 records Ai as having been destroyed by
Joshua and his army, as part of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. "Ai" means "ruin" in Hebrew,
and is "generally identified with the site of et-Tell, which means "ruin" or "mound of ruins" in
Arabic." 1 The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land describes Ai as "An ancient
Canaanite city-state situated near Beth-Aven, east of Beth-El." 2 Also, it is postulated that the
Israelites may have taken the name "from their predecessors, the Canaanites, in whose time the
site was already in ruins."3
• As Joseph Callaway relates to us, the fateful day for this site came when the site was excavated
"on September 11, 1933, to Judith Krause, a twenty-seven-year-old Palestinian born Israeli
recently graduated from the Sarbonne in Paris and one of the pioneer women archaeologists of
the Holy Land. Krause...is to be credited with the ‘blockbuster’ interpretation of the evidence at Ai
that has given the site its distinctive place in biblical archaeology: there was no evidence of a city
at Ai from c.2400 B.C.E to about 1200 B.C.E." 4 Therefore, the narrative of the conquest in
Joshua 8 would have to bee seen, according to this interpretation of the evidence, as largely
fictional. Most interpretations of the archaeological and Biblical evidence up to this point had dated
the conquest of Canaan around 1400 B.C.E.
• Krause’s excavation actually took place between 1933-35. Callaway himself undertook the project
of renewing the excavations in1964, confirming most of Krause’s discoveries. 5 Controversy has
loomed over the issue with many simply assuming that Ai was not occupied at the time of Joshua.
Early Bronze Age Temple
Iron Age Temple
Iron Age Village
• n view of the finds at Khirbet Maqatir, this new possibility for
Beth Aven is Khirbet Maqatir itself.
• Does Kh. Maqatir fulfill the requirements for Beth Aven? The
archaeological profile there matches the Biblical profile for Beth
Aven. Middle and Late Bronze pottery has been found, fitting the
references in Joshua. There was a destruction during the Late
Bronze period. Apparently, Maqatir was resettled during Iron Age I.
Of interest is an Iron Age pagan cultic stand which has come to light
in the Maqatir excavations. This might fit with the meaning of Beth
Aven -- “house of wickedness.”
• As in Joshua 7:2, Kh. Maqatir is found almost straight east of Bethel
(now located at el-Bireh). Next, Maqatir faces the Judean wilderness
(the “wilderness of Beth Aven”) as it should according to Joshua
18:12-13.
• Third Possibility for Ai: Khirbet Nisya
Size of Kh. Nisya Compared with Gibeon (el-Jib)
• The size of Gibeon is usually considered to be about 10-11 acres.
But the Benjamin Survey (Finkelstein 1993: 46*, 235) says it is 60
dunams, or about 15 acres. Joshua 10:2 says that Gibeon was
“greater than Ai.” This is interpreted as a reference to the
comparative sizes of Gibeon and Ai. Ai should be smaller than
Gibeon. Kh. Nisya is about 4-5 acres in size depending with which
period one is concerned. In some periods it may have been smaller,
in others larger than 5-6 acres.
• The Benjamin Survey gives the size of Nisya as 15 dunams, or
almost 4 acres (Finkelstein 1993: 32*,166), but this may be a
subjective figure since few of the sites were actually measured by
the Benjamin Survey team. Kh. Nisya meets the condition of being
smaller than Gibeon.
• Khirbet Nisya Was Occupied in MB II/LB I
• Sherds and artifacts indicative of MB II and LB I, are included on several plates of drawings (See
Plates 3.1-3.5, pages 34-43 in Khirbet Nisya: the Search for Biblical Ai, 1979-2002). These are
only examples from among many. But there is sufficient quantity of each type, and variety of styles
of every kind of water and storage jar, juglet, cooking pot, bowl, chalice, krater, etc. to indicate that
Kh. Nisya was inhabited during MB II and LB I.
• These are not simply chance finds dropped by wandering Canaanite shepherds. They indicate
habitation during these periods. For example,60-plus sherds (not all are displayed on Plate 5.1
of Khirbet Nisya: the Search for Biblical Ai, 1979-2002) of handmade, flat-bottomed, pie-crust-
rimmed cooking pots are considerable when compared with those found by Kenyon in her much
larger excavations at Jericho.
• Kh. Nisya Should Have Had Walls During MBII/LBI
• Evidence of walls and a gate have not yet been found at Khirbet Nisya. The reason is not difficult
to understand. First, it is important to note how city walls were built in late Middle Bronze II and
into Late Bronze I. Almost without exception at MB sites, city walls were built on a fieldstone base
about one m high (for drainage?) topped with mudbricks to the desired height. Examples of this
type of wall were found at Beth-Shemesh (Avi-Yonah 1975 1:250), Shechem (Seger 1975:35),
Beitin (Avi-Yonah 1975 1:192), Jericho (Ibid. 2:562), Dan (Biran 1984:8), Hazor (Avi-Yonah 1975
2:481), Beth-Zur (Ibid. 1:265), Aphek (Kochavi 1975:30), Tel Nagila (Avi-Yonah 1975 3:896), Kh.
Zurekiyeh (1 acre in size; Gophna and Ayalon 1981: 69), to cite a partial list.
Cities of Refuge (map)
Interactive Map
Cities of Refuge (map)
Interactive Map